| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Nikhil S <nixmisc(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: pgAdmin III: adjust code as per new EDB AS90 functions/procedures semantics |
| Date: | 2011-02-21 15:46:28 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTi=7sace0pCKTzsXWkfLdiD_VsOa48fN5aDm9mH2@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgadmin-hackers |
On Feb 21, 2011 3:29 PM, "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>
> Thanks Nikhil.
>
> Are there any catalog changes with the refactoring, that change the
> way parameters are represented that need to be reflected elsewhere in
> pgFunction.cpp?
>
> Also, does anyone object to back-patching this? It's not a bug fix,
> but it does mean that we don't support corresponding versions of PPAS
> and PG in the same version of pgAdmin which seems undesirable.
I wasn't aware they were supposed to be? Is that new, or has it always been?
More to the point - is this the only thing needed to reach compatibility? If
so, i guess we can make an exception. If not, then there is no point without
doing a bunch of more patches for other things, in which case i will
object...
The
> patch is pretty straightforward and seems low risk.
This is of course a prerequisite in either case? I also assume it affects
only an edbas codepath?
/Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2011-02-21 16:22:51 | Re: pgAdmin III: adjust code as per new EDB AS90 functions/procedures semantics |
| Previous Message | Nikhil S | 2011-02-21 14:52:40 | Re: pgAdmin III: adjust code as per new EDB AS90 functions/procedures semantics |